Donald Trump

[kfh227]

Frankly  he scares the living hell out of me.  IF he didn't preach so much hate and violence it would be different.  It scares me to think that someone with his attitude could have their finger on the trigger.

I don't think he would have much effect on the market.

 

It's just game theory being used in practice.  He is playing a game.  And doing a good job at it.

 

You start by campaigning to the extreme viewpoints.  Get them in your corner.  Then gradually shift to the middle while gradually capturing the rooks that are less crazy.

 

By the time he starts debating Hillary, he'll sound just like her.

 

Here's the deal.  The poor and middle class are best off with Bernie.  There is no hope with Hilary.  Sadly, Trump has said some thing that make it appear as though he is going to try to move the money curve back to the people that work.  At worse, Trump will be a typical politician.  At best, he'll actually do things to help a majority of the citizenship of the USA.  Hilary at worse is a politiacian.  At best Hilary is just a politician.

 

To be honest and open, my choices are:

1) Bernie

2) Trump

3) Abstain - who cares, we're screwed either way.

 

[kfh227]

  The hatred for Trump is palpable, which is what makes me want him to win. 

Not sure if you're serious...but if so, that is such an illogical argument.

 

Illogical if you want the system "to work" whatever that means to you, but not illogical at all if you're goal is the crumbling of the system.  The more hatred and disgust politics engenders the less people will look to it to solve problems.  The best outcome possible is for people to think of politics as a nasty process that is irrelevant to their lives and to dismiss it completely.

 

At best, it will begin a shift away from politicians running the country and instead, having the country run by it's citizens.  As weird as that sounds, we've gone to far for to long in the wrong direction.  I'll vote for anyone that is not a career politician knowing only that one fact.  OK, they also have to show some level of reasonable intelligence. 

[cubsfan]

How do you change your vote?

 

Move to Canada.

 

If Trump gets elected Canada will have to build a wall to keep all the fleeing Americans out.

[Jurgis]

I'll vote for anyone that is not a career politician knowing only that one fact.  OK, they also have to show some level of reasonable intelligence.

 

Been tried in other countries. Usually doesn't work well. President has to work with Congress/etc., which does require more than just intelligence, it requires connections, understanding of the power structures, etc.

 

For better or worse, IMO, politician is a career just like other career. There is a reason a new lawyer or manager or doctor or whatever is usually not suited to take on the most complicated jobs in their area. Same with politicians. Sure, there can be geniuses who do great, but on average a career politician will do better than someone who isn't.

 

Expecting Mr. Smith to go and change Washington is naive and works only in movies. Possibly unfortunately.

[Cardboard]

When people use terms like these, I think that is why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: "not conservative old fashioned religious-values".

 

Guess what, that is a very large portion of the American population, if not the largest group. IMO, these people are sick and tired of being asked to be politically correct, bend their principles for everyone and then being told that they are dumb and should not exist.

 

The Constitution was written by these very people using such values. When in Rome, do as the Romans do or at the very least, respect what they are.

 

Cardboard

[rkbabang]

  The hatred for Trump is palpable, which is what makes me want him to win. 

Not sure if you're serious...but if so, that is such an illogical argument.

 

Illogical if you want the system "to work" whatever that means to you, but not illogical at all if you're goal is the crumbling of the system.  The more hatred and disgust politics engenders the less people will look to it to solve problems.  The best outcome possible is for people to think of politics as a nasty process that is irrelevant to their lives and to dismiss it completely.

 

Just curious if you can point to any human society that functioned well with this type of structure.

 

I don't think I mentioned any type of "structure".  If you mean with very little to nothing being forcibly controlled and regulated by government, then probably no, not yet.  Human society is always evolving and is still evolving.  You do realize that you just gave the pro-slavery argument from the 17th century right?  A prosperous society and/or empire has never existed without slavery.  Maybe it was the industrial revolution that allowed a non-slavery society to be wealthy, or maybe a free market without slavery could have produced a wealthy society even before the mechanization of  the industrial revolution. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that slavery was immoral regardless of the answer to that question.  Maybe a stateless society could have been possible before the information age, or maybe it takes the information age to make it possible, or some future technological progress that we don't yet have.  I don't know the answer to that either, but I do know that using violence to control people and taxation to rob people is immoral.  And just like slavery when the public at large recognizes that it is possible to do without it, it will suddenly become common sense that of course no one has the right to use violence against their neighbor "for the common good" or because 50% of the population think it's OK.  We are still at the very dawn of the information age and already the world is becoming smaller, and once the oldest few generations die out we will have a world populated by people who have never been afraid of foreigners and who never thought of them as non-humans.  Nationalism will lose its power to control, sort of how science took away religion's power to control after many generations.

 

Almost everything that the government does has a historic example of a society that functioned reasonably well (for its historical time) without the government performing that function.  The early united states is a good example for a lot of government functions as the government didn't do a lot back then, yet the society not only functioned but prospered.  Medieval Iceland is an example of private law, for example, not perfect, I think it could be done better, but functional, maybe more so than today's united states.  No, there has never yet been a full functioning stateless society, but I think we will eventually get there.

 

[rkbabang]

How do you change your vote?

 

Move to Canada.

 

If Trump gets elected Canada will have to build a wall to keep all the fleeing Americans out.

 

Maybe they can even get America to pay for it. :)

[rkbabang]

What's great about this election wherever I see it discussed, and this thread is no exception, is that unlike past elections where everyone was really excited about one candidate or the other and thought they were voting for hope and change, everyone now is like "They all suck, but X is a little better than Y".

 

[Jurgis]

When people use terms like these, I think that is why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: "not conservative old fashioned religious-values".

 

Guess what, that is a very large portion of the American population, if not the largest group.

 

And it is very sad if 21st century majority of America follow some kind of twisted version of a fairy tale written 2000 years ago in Middle East.

 

You'd think humans would think and be rational.

[wachtwoord]

While Saunders is moronic mrs. Clinton is simply evil.

What makes you think Sanders is moronic?

 

He's a socialist. It's extremely evident any socialistic system is sub-optimal by definition but people keep trying it because it matches their definition of fair (where fair is condired equality).

 

Striving for equality is stupid. The more equal they make the lower incentive for skilled individuals to do anything of value. Motivation to do good is not intrinsic.

[Libs]

When people use terms like these, I think that is why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: "not conservative old fashioned religious-values".

 

Guess what, that is a very large portion of the American population, if not the largest group.

 

Nice comment....dripping with contempt......you just made Cardboard's point.

 

And it is very sad if 21st century majority of America follow some kind of twisted version of a fairy tale written 2000 years ago in Middle East.

 

You'd think humans would think and be rational.

[Libs]

When people use terms like these, I think that is why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: "not conservative old fashioned religious-values".

 

Guess what, that is a very large portion of the American population, if not the largest group.

 

And it is very sad if 21st century majority of America follow some kind of twisted version of a fairy tale written 2000 years ago in Middle East.

 

You'd think humans would think and be rational.

 

 

Nice comment...dripping with contempt. You just made Cardboard's point.

[LC]

What's great about this election wherever I see it discussed, and this thread is no exception, is that unlike past elections where everyone was really excited about one candidate or the other and thought they were voting for hope and change, everyone now is like "They all suck, but X is a little better than Y".

 

I personally really hope Sanders wins, I think he's the best candidate the US has had since I've been alive.

 

While Saunders is moronic mrs. Clinton is simply evil.

What makes you think Sanders is moronic?

 

He's a socialist. It's extremely evident any socialistic system is sub-optimal by definition but people keep trying it because it matches their definition of fair (where fair is condired equality).

 

Striving for equality is stupid. The more equal they make the lower incentive for skilled individuals to do anything of value. Motivation to do good is not intrinsic.

This is such a black and white picture you are painting...First, the US is not a purely capitalist country. Look at the major government programs to see that. Second, unfettered capitalism has been shown to be both productive and destructive. Sometimes, very destructive. Reasonable regulation seems like the best option.

 

Sanders has 8 main proposals (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/)

 

Most of them seem reasonable to me. Frankly, the bigger issue is how much money is being siphoned away through tax-avoidance.

 

I mean, some of them are even "anti-socialist". For example cutting government handouts to O&G companies: (http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2015-04-sanders-ellison-introduce-bill-to-end-135-b-in-fossil-fuel-handouts).

 

I'm not exactly sure where you see the downfall of the American entrepreneurial spirit fitting into the above. What I see is stopping a lot of rich, powerful groups from avoiding reasonable taxes which are causing a lot of the income inequality and social strife in this country.

[LC]

 

I don't think I mentioned any type of "structure".  If you mean with very little to nothing being forcibly controlled and regulated by government, then probably no, not yet.  Human society is always evolving and is still evolving.  You do realize that you just gave the pro-slavery argument from the 17th century right?  A prosperous society and/or empire has never existed without slavery.  Maybe it was the industrial revolution that allowed a non-slavery society to be wealthy, or maybe a free market without slavery could have produced a wealthy society even before the mechanization of  the industrial revolution. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that slavery was immoral regardless of the answer to that question.

Perhaps in a truly anarchist society like the one you propose, slavery would arise as the naturally strong prey on the weak. Perhaps only through the collective agreement of humans (aka politics) would the unsavory aspects of human nature be limited.

 

    I do know that using violence to control people and taxation to rob people is immoral. 

And the removal of a state is going to solve this?

 

And just like slavery when the public at large recognizes that it is possible to do without it, it will suddenly become common sense that of course no one has the right to use violence against their neighbor "for the common good" or because 50% of the population think it's OK.

"rights" don't exist in an anarchistic state. it only takes 1 person to think it's OK for them to do it.

 

 

  No, there has never yet been a full functioning stateless society, but I think we will eventually get there.

My question was relatively loaded because before "states" and "governments" existed, a "stateless" society existed. We lived in caves and hunted and gathered.

 

But even in those days social structure existed. Maybe it wasn't an "official state" but there was a political process and agreed upon rules. And forms of "taxation". No, the IRS didn't come after you but you sure as hell better save some of your seeds with the village otherwise you will be ostracized.

[augustabound]

How do you change your vote?

 

Move to Canada.

 

If Trump gets elected Canada will have to build a wall to keep all the fleeing Americans out.

 

#BrickingitforCanada

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/bricking-it-for-canada-1.3479184

Our UK cousins want to build a wall for us.  ;D

[DCG]

The best line from Trump usually happens when he's talking on stage he just goes somthing along the lines of "I just thought of that right now." That guy is amazing. Comedy gold.

 

 

yeah...that was when he 'just thought' of telling everyone to boycott the largest company in the country (Apple) - when he and his staff all use iPhones.

[tooskinneejs]

In no way I am predicting this will come to be, but they do say that those who ignore history are bound to repeat it and the similarities here are rather remarkable.

 

But who is he ?  .............

 

He was very egotistical - to put it mildly.

 

He ran on a platform that he would make the country great again.

 

He blamed the Land’s problems on other countries who were taking advantage of his country.

 

He promised to rid the country of certain races and religions.

 

His rallies were marked by outbreaks of violence.

 

He promised to rip up international agreements to better the country.

 

He came to power in Germany in 1933 and his name was Adolph Hitler.

 

I don’t believe in reincarnation, but Trump’s people did have to get him to stop raising his hand in a gesture that mimicked the Nazi salute when he appeared at his rallies.

 

The comparison to Hitler came up in response to Trump's suggestion to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US until we had adequate vetting systems.

 

Hitler wanted to exterminate a large portion of citizens within his own country.  By attempting to temporarily ban Muslims immigrants from Syria - some of whom may be ISIS infiltrators - Trump is trying to ensure that a portion of our population is NOT exterminated.

 

In other words, Trump is trying to accomplish the exact opposite of Hitler.  Did you know that most of the victims of the San Bernardino shooting were minorities and some were Muslims?  Odd then, to compare Trump to Hitler when Trump is trying to prevent another San Bernardino with more US citizens (of all stripes) being killed.

 

Sorry, but the analogy to Hitler is one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard.  And I say this as someone who voted for Obama twice.

[wisdom]

How long before the Whitehouse is renamed - Trump house. This is the most critical question.

[Jurgis]

If Carter can put solar panels on White House, can Trump put on a neon lights and roulette wheel?

[wachtwoord]

What's great about this election wherever I see it discussed, and this thread is no exception, is that unlike past elections where everyone was really excited about one candidate or the other and thought they were voting for hope and change, everyone now is like "They all suck, but X is a little better than Y".

 

I personally really hope Sanders wins, I think he's the best candidate the US has had since I've been alive.

 

While Saunders is moronic mrs. Clinton is simply evil.

What makes you think Sanders is moronic?

 

He's a socialist. It's extremely evident any socialistic system is sub-optimal by definition but people keep trying it because it matches their definition of fair (where fair is condired equality).

 

Striving for equality is stupid. The more equal they make the lower incentive for skilled individuals to do anything of value. Motivation to do good is not intrinsic.

This is such a black and white picture you are painting...First, the US is not a purely capitalist country. Look at the major government programs to see that. Second, unfettered capitalism has been shown to be both productive and destructive. Sometimes, very destructive. Reasonable regulation seems like the best option.

 

Sanders has 8 main proposals (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/)

 

Most of them seem reasonable to me. Frankly, the bigger issue is how much money is being siphoned away through tax-avoidance.

 

I mean, some of them are even "anti-socialist". For example cutting government handouts to O&G companies: (http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2015-04-sanders-ellison-introduce-bill-to-end-135-b-in-fossil-fuel-handouts).

 

I'm not exactly sure where you see the downfall of the American entrepreneurial spirit fitting into the above. What I see is stopping a lot of rich, powerful groups from avoiding reasonable taxes which are causing a lot of the income inequality and social strife in this country.

 

The US is socialist. Has been socialistic for as long as I've been alive and far longer than that. About early 1900s the US started to interfere with the free market and it all went downhill from there (this is also when you got a central bank. Europe was fucked way before that). Then the great depression was blamed on the free market and Keynesian was the great rescuer. In real life it was the other way around.

 

When there is a dip in the economy the government should not interfere (to make jobs or what not) but let the market do it's natural self correcting sweep. If you block that you'll postpone the bubble and get a bigger one later. That's what's been happening over and over again. You really think I believe the US has a free market? Just look at all the companies that should have gone bankrupt were 'saved' by the government in 2008. Just look at the financial system with a central bank. Of course Europe is much much worse ...

 

Also all that equality crap. If you make the world equal it is no longer fair as doing something positive will be rewarded the same as inactivity or doing something negative. Who will do something positive? Subjectively I consider a pyramid division of the world the most fair way but objectively it's the most efficient wealth distribution too.

 

I short: I don't like people stealing from me. Especially when they do it with an air of a moral high ground. That's how you make me your enemy.

[merkhet]

How do you change your vote?

 

Move to Canada.

 

Canada has the worst government since inception.

 

In the poll! How do you change your vote in the thread's poll...

 

I understood that you asked about the poll, but since this thread is  ::)  :o  ::) anyway, I thought it was funny to point you in the right direction. I mean in the northern direction.  :P

 

Edit: no, poll votes for this poll are not changeable. Probably the author did not actually allow it.

 

Haha. Yes, I know. It's hard to see the faux exasperation in my comment over the interwebs!

[LC]

The US is socialist. Has been socialistic for as long as I've been alive and far longer than that. About early 1900s the US started to interfere with the free market and it all went downhill from there (this is also when you got a central bank. Europe was fucked way before that). Then the great depression was blamed on the free market and Keynesian was the great rescuer. In real life it was the other way around.

 

When there is a dip in the economy the government should not interfere (to make jobs or what not) but let the market do it's natural self correcting sweep. If you block that you'll postpone the bubble and get a bigger one later. That's what's been happening over and over again. You really think I believe the US has a free market? Just look at all the companies that should have gone bankrupt were 'saved' by the government in 2008. Just look at the financial system with a central bank. Of course Europe is much much worse ...

 

Also all that equality crap. If you make the world equal it is no longer fair as doing something positive will be rewarded the same as inactivity or doing something negative. Who will do something positive? Subjectively I consider a pyramid division of the world the most fair way but objectively it's the most efficient wealth distribution too.

 

I short: I don't like people stealing from me. Especially when they do it with an air of a moral high ground. That's how you make me your enemy.

Pretty intellectually easy argument to make.

 

So the US has been "all downhill" since the 1900s? I'm not sure follow that. The 20th century was essentially defined by the US.

 

In terms of "socialism" I think we are talking past each other. I'm arguing for progressive taxation to fund general social programs (social security and universal healthcare as the two largest and probably most important). You're arguing against economic bailouts and macroeconomic intervention. The two are fundamentally different.

 

I also don't buy the argument that equality stifles incentive. Plenty of brilliant Russian scientists were born, educated, and accomplished brilliant things in Communist Russia.

[rkbabang]

How long before the Whitehouse is renamed - Trump house. This is the most critical question.

 

If only the Democrats would nominate Biglari to run against him. That would be perfect.  USA by Biglari.

 

[cwericb]

tooskinneejs :

“Sorry, but the analogy to Hitler is one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard.”

 

Well I wasn’t necessarily comparing Trump to Hitler. I simply stated some of Hitler’s campaign platforms that brought him to power and let the chips fall where they may. I simply mentioned that Donald had to change his method of waving to the crowd. Actually it was you that made the comparison between Trump and Hitler.

“Hitler wanted to exterminate a large portion of citizens within his own country.”

 

He certainly did. But he never campaigned on a policy of exterminating the Jews. Therein lies the problem. When politicians say they are going to do something and do not say how they are going to do it, you write a blank check when you put them in power.

 

“By attempting to temporarily ban Muslims immigrants from Syria”

Where did you get that idea? Mr. Trump initially said he wanted to prevent ANY Muslims from entering the country “...until we get this thing figured out”. Then someone asked what he intended to do about all of the Muslim US servicemen serving overseas and other Muslim Americans returning to the US. I’m not sure he ever answered that. However, that is typical. Trump makes rash sweeping statements that sound appealing at first glance but never outlines how he intends to do them.

 

Not only Muslims, but you omitted Trump’s desire to expel all those Hispanic US residents.

 

[wachtwoord]

The US is socialist. Has been socialistic for as long as I've been alive and far longer than that. About early 1900s the US started to interfere with the free market and it all went downhill from there (this is also when you got a central bank. Europe was fucked way before that). Then the great depression was blamed on the free market and Keynesian was the great rescuer. In real life it was the other way around.

 

When there is a dip in the economy the government should not interfere (to make jobs or what not) but let the market do it's natural self correcting sweep. If you block that you'll postpone the bubble and get a bigger one later. That's what's been happening over and over again. You really think I believe the US has a free market? Just look at all the companies that should have gone bankrupt were 'saved' by the government in 2008. Just look at the financial system with a central bank. Of course Europe is much much worse ...

 

Also all that equality crap. If you make the world equal it is no longer fair as doing something positive will be rewarded the same as inactivity or doing something negative. Who will do something positive? Subjectively I consider a pyramid division of the world the most fair way but objectively it's the most efficient wealth distribution too.

 

I short: I don't like people stealing from me. Especially when they do it with an air of a moral high ground. That's how you make me your enemy.

Pretty intellectually easy argument to make.

 

So the US has been "all downhill" since the 1900s? I'm not sure follow that. The 20th century was essentially defined by the US.

 

In terms of "socialism" I think we are talking past each other. I'm arguing for progressive taxation to fund general social programs (social security and universal healthcare as the two largest and probably most important). You're arguing against economic bailouts and macroeconomic intervention. The two are fundamentally different.

 

I also don't buy the argument that equality stifles incentive. Plenty of brilliant Russian scientists were born, educated, and accomplished brilliant things in Communist Russia.

 

The US won 2 world wars in the 20th century. Unless they aim to repeat that feat the 21st will be much worse..

 

And we are not arguing past each other because bail outs and progressive taxation (theft) to afford universal health care are two sides of the same coin. An intervening, corrupt, inefficient government parasite.